A psychological intervention for engaging dialogically with auditory hallucinations (Talking With Voices): A single-site, randomised controlled feasibility trial.

There is growing clinical interest in addressing relationship dynamics between service-users and their voices. The Talking With Voices (TwV) trial aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of a novel dialogical intervention to reduce distress associated with voices amongst adults diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The single-site, single-blind (rater) randomised controlled trial recruited 50 participants who were allocated 1:1 to treatment as usual (TAU), or TAU plus up to 26 sessions of TwV therapy. Participants were assessed at baseline and again at end of treatment (six-months). The primary outcomes were quantitative and qualitative assessments of feasibility and acceptability. Secondary outcomes involved clinical measures, including targeted instruments for voice-hearing, dissociation, and emotional distress. The trial achieved 100 % of the target sample, 24 of whom were allocated to therapy and 26 to TAU. The trial had high retention (40/50 [80 %] participants at six-months) and high intervention adherence (21/24 [87.5 %] receiving ≥8 sessions). Signals of efficacy were shown in targeted measures of voice-hearing, dissociation, and perceptions of recovery. Analysis on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale indicated that there were no differences in means of general psychosis symptom scores in TwV compared to the control group. There were four serious adverse events in the therapy group and eight in TAU, none of which were related to study proceedings. The trial demonstrates the acceptability of the intervention and the feasibility of delivering it under controlled, randomised conditions. An adequately powered definitive trial is necessary to provide robust evidence regarding efficacy evaluation and cost-effectiveness. Trial registration: ISRCTN 45308981.

Psychological intervention, antipsychotic medication or a combined treatment for adolescents with a first episode of psychosis: the MAPS feasibility three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: When psychosis emerges in young people there is a risk of poorer outcomes, and access to evidence-based treatments is paramount. The current evidence base is limited. Antipsychotic medications show only a small benefit over placebo, but young people experience more side effects than adults. There is sparse evidence for psychological intervention. Research is needed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological intervention versus antipsychotic medication versus a combined treatment for adolescents with psychosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS) was to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial to answer the question of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these three treatment options. DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomised, open-blinded, evaluation feasibility trial with a single blind. Participants were allocated 1 : 1 : 1 to receive antipsychotic medication, psychological intervention or a combination of both. A thematic qualitative study explored the acceptability and feasibility of the trial. SETTING: Early intervention in psychosis services and child and adolescent mental health services in Manchester, Oxford, Lancashire, Sussex, Birmingham, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear. PARTICIPANTS: People aged 14-18 years experiencing a first episode of psychosis either with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis or meeting the entry criteria for early intervention in psychosis who had not received antipsychotic medication or psychological intervention within the last 3 months. INTERVENTIONS: Psychological intervention involved up to 26 hours of cognitive-behavioural therapy and six family intervention sessions over 6 months, with up to four booster sessions. Antipsychotic medication was prescribed by the participant's psychiatrist in line with usual practice. Combined treatment was a combination of psychological intervention and antipsychotic medication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was feasibility (recruitment, treatment adherence and retention). We used a three-stage progression criterion to determine feasibility. Secondary outcomes were psychosis symptoms, recovery, anxiety and depression, social and educational/occupational functioning, drug and alcohol use, health economics, adverse/metabolic side effects and adverse/serious adverse events. RESULTS: We recruited 61 out of 90 (67.8%; amber zone) potential participants (psychological intervention, n = 18; antipsychotic medication, n = 22; combined treatment, n = 21). Retention to follow-up was 51 out of 61 participants (83.6%; green zone). In the psychological intervention arm and the combined treatment arm, 32 out of 39 (82.1%) participants received six or more sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy (green zone). In the combined treatment arm and the antipsychotic medication arm, 28 out of 43 (65.1%) participants received antipsychotic medication for 6 consecutive weeks (amber zone). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial and one related adverse event. Overall, the number of completed secondary outcome measures, including health economics, was small. LIMITATIONS: Medication adherence was determined by clinician report, which can be biased. The response to secondary outcomes was low, including health economics. The small sample size obtained means that the study lacked statistical power and there will be considerable uncertainty regarding estimates of treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to conduct a trial comparing psychological intervention with antipsychotic medication and a combination treatment in young people with psychosis with some adaptations to the design, including adaptations to collection of health economic data to determine cost-effectiveness. FUTURE WORK: An adequately powered definitive trial is required to provide robust evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80567433. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psychosis is a mental health problem that can involve hearing, seeing or believing things that others do not. Although many young people who experience psychosis recover well from their first episode of psychosis, others can have more serious, longer-lasting problems. There has not been a large amount of research into the treatment of psychosis in young people; therefore, it is important to test different treatments against each other in clinical trials. 'Feasibility' trials, such as the one we carried out [Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS)], test whether or not it is possible to run larger trials. MAPS was a small trial that was run in seven locations in the UK. People who were aged 14­18 years and experiencing psychosis were able to take part. Each participant was randomly assigned to receive psychological treatment (cognitive­behavioural therapy and optional family therapy), antipsychotic medication or a combination of both. All of the participants met with a trial research assistant three times for assessments about well-being and symptoms. Some clinicians, participants and family members were interviewed about their opinions of the trial and treatments. The trial also had patient and public involvement; service user researchers were involved in design, interview data collection, analysis and report writing. Sixty-one young people took part in MAPS, which was around 68% of our target number. In total, 84% completed the assessments with research assistants. The results showed that, overall, all treatments were acceptable to young people and their family members. However, a higher percentage of young people actually received the 'minimum dose' of psychological treatment than the 'minimum dose' of antipsychotic medication (82% vs. 65%). Results showed that it was possible to run a larger trial such as this. However, some changes would be required to run a larger trial, such as location (focusing on urban areas with well established early intervention in psychosis teams), increasing involvement of psychiatrists and increasing the age limit for participation to 25 years.

Antipsychotic medication versus psychological intervention versus a combination of both in adolescents with first-episode psychosis (MAPS): a multicentre, three-arm, randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis. METHODS: We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14-18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. FINDINGS: Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16·3 years [SD 1·3]) were recruited from April 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-month primary endpoint), a high rate of adherence to psychological intervention (defined as six or more sessions of CBT; in 32 [82%] of 39 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups), and a moderate rate of adherence to antipsychotic medication (defined as at least 6 consecutive weeks of exposure to antipsychotics; in 28 [65%] of 43 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups). Mean scores for PANSS total at the 6-month primary endpoint were 68·6 (SD 17·3) for antipsychotic monotherapy (6·2 points lower than at randomisation), 59·8 (13·7) for psychological intervention (13·1 points lower than at randomisation), and 62·0 (15·9) for antipsychotics plus psychological intervention (13·9 points lower than at randomisation). A good clinical response at 6 months (defined as ≥50% improvement in PANSS total score) was achieved in four (22%) of 18 patients receiving antipsychotic monotherapy, five (31%) of 16 receiving psychological intervention, and five (29%) of 17 receiving antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. In as-treated groups, serious adverse events occurred in eight [35%] of 23 patients in the combined group, two [13%] of 15 in the antipsychotics group, four [24%] of 17 in the psychological intervention group, and four [80%] of five who did not receive any treatment. No serious adverse events were considered to be related to participation in the trial. INTERPRETATION: This trial is the first to show that a head-to-head clinical trial comparing psychological intervention, antipsychotics, and their combination is safe in young people with first-episode psychosis. However, the feasibility of a larger trial is unclear because of site-specific recruitment challenges, and amendments to trial design would be needed for an adequately powered clinical and cost-effectiveness trial that provides robust evidence. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Relationships between psychiatric symptoms, functioning and personal recovery in psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Recovery from psychosis is increasingly being viewed as a combination of symptomatic, functional, and personal recovery. Negative and depressive symptoms have been linked to community functioning, and negative affect has been linked to personal recovery. The current study examines differential associations of symptoms with functional and personal recovery, and the interaction of cognitive and emotional components of psychotic experiences in predicting recovery. METHODS: Baseline data from four studies of individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders were amalgamated for the current analyses. All studies utilized the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale, Personal and Social Performance Scale, and the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery. RESULTS: 971 individuals participated across the four studies. Affective symptoms were most strongly associated with personal recovery, accounting for 30% of the variance in personal recovery and only 2% of the variance in objective functioning. Negative and disorganized symptoms were related to both functional and personal recovery, excitement symptoms were only related to personal recovery, and broad measures of positive symptoms were not associated with either functional or personal recovery. Cognitive interpretations of psychotic experiences were more strongly related to objective functioning, and emotional components of psychotic experiences were more strongly related to personal recovery; cognitive interpretations moderated the relationship between emotional characteristics and recovery measures. CONCLUSIONS: Functional and personal recovery are distinct domains of recovery with differential relationships to symptomatology. Interventions that target cognitive interpretations of psychotic experiences and negative affect may be more likely to affect multiple domains of recovery.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of CBT vs antipsychotics vs both in 14-18-year-olds: Managing Adolescent first episode Psychosis: a feasibility study (MAPS).

BACKGROUND: Adolescent-onset psychosis is associated with more severe symptoms and poorer outcomes than adult-onset psychosis. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend that adolescents with first episode psychosis (FEP) should be offered a combination of antipsychotic medication (APs), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and family intervention (FI). The evidence for APs in treating psychosis is limited in adolescents compared to adults. Nevertheless, it indicates that APs can reduce overall symptoms in adolescents but may cause more severe side effects, including cardiovascular and metabolic effects, than in adults. CBT and FI can improve outcomes in adults, but there are no studies of psychological interventions (PI) in patients under 18 years old. Given this limited evidence base, NICE made a specific research recommendation for determining the clinical and cost effectiveness of APs versus PI versus both treatments for adolescent FEP. METHODS/DESIGN: The current study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of conducting such a trial by recruiting 14-18-year-olds with a first episode of psychosis into a feasibility prospective randomised open blinded evaluation (PROBE) design, three-arm, randomised controlled trial of APs alone versus PI alone versus a combination of both treatments. We aimed to recruit 90 participants from Early Intervention and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Teams in seven UK sites. APs were prescribed by participants' usual psychiatrists. PI comprised standardised cognitive behavioural therapy and family intervention sessions. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to compare APs to PI in an adolescent population with FEP. Recruitment finished on 31 October 2018. The study faced difficulties with recruitment across most sites due to factors including clinician and service-user treatment preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trial with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433 . Registered on 27 February 2017.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: the FOCUS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Clozapine (clozaril, Mylan Products Ltd) is a first-choice treatment for people with schizophrenia who have a poor response to standard antipsychotic medication. However, a significant number of patients who trial clozapine have an inadequate response and experience persistent symptoms, called clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS). There is little evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological or psychological interventions for this population. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for people with CRS and to identify factors predicting outcome. DESIGN: The Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial was a parallel-group, randomised, outcome-blinded evaluation trial. Randomisation was undertaken using permuted blocks of random size via a web-based platform. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, using random-effects regression adjusted for site, age, sex and baseline symptoms. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out to determine whether or not CBT was associated with a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and higher costs than treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Secondary care mental health services in five cities in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: People with CRS aged ≥ 16 years, with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses and who are experiencing psychotic symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: Individual CBT included up to 30 hours of therapy delivered over 9 months. The comparator was TAU, which included care co-ordination from secondary care mental health services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months and the primary secondary outcome was PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months post randomisation). The health benefit measure for the economic evaluation was the QALY, estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), health status measure. Service use was measured to estimate costs. RESULTS: Participants were allocated to CBT (n = 242) or TAU (n = 245). There was no significant difference between groups on the prespecified primary outcome [PANSS total score at 21 months was 0.89 points lower in the CBT arm than in the TAU arm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.32 to 1.55 points; p = 0.475], although PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months) was significantly lower in the CBT arm (-2.40 points, 95% CI -4.79 to -0.02 points; p = 0.049). CBT was associated with a net cost of £5378 (95% CI -£13,010 to £23,766) and a net QALY gain of 0.052 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.103 QALYs) compared with TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis indicated a low likelihood that CBT was cost-effective, in the primary and sensitivity analyses (probability < 50%). In the CBT arm, 107 participants reported at least one adverse event (AE), whereas 104 participants in the TAU arm reported at least one AE (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46; p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive-behavioural therapy for CRS was not superior to TAU on the primary outcome of total PANSS symptoms at 21 months, but was superior on total PANSS symptoms at 9 months (end of treatment). CBT was not found to be cost-effective in comparison with TAU. There was no suggestion that the addition of CBT to TAU caused adverse effects. Future work could investigate whether or not specific therapeutic techniques of CBT have value for some CRS individuals, how to identify those who may benefit and how to ensure that effects on symptoms can be sustained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Providing mental health peer support 2: Relationships with empowerment, hope, recovery, quality of life and internalised stigma.

OBJECTIVE: Qualitative research has identified personal costs and benefits for peer supporters associated with their role; however, quantitative evidence is sparse. This study used quantitative methods to explore relationships in experiences of providing peer support with constructs of empowerment, hope, recovery, quality of life and internalised stigma. Differences were examined for those in statutory versus non-statutory services; who had themselves received peer support versus those who had not and who identified having had negative experiences in clinical teams versus those without such experiences. METHODS: A cross-sectional online and postal survey was undertaken in tandem with a linked consensus study. In all, 147 peer supporters were recruited from a variety of organisations across the United Kingdom. Validated questionnaires were used to examine constructs. Instruments created for the study measured peer support experiences, and personal costs and benefits involved. Correlations were calculated and results informed further regression analysis. Chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests tested group differences. RESULTS: Peer supporters indicated they experienced almost twice as many role-related personal benefits than personal costs. Benefits included improvements to mental health and well-being, reduced use of services, increased social functioning and development of skills. Total number of personal costs experienced was significantly negatively related to peer supporters' empowerment and quality of life. There were no significant differences between the groups examined. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: An accumulation of personal costs may result in reduced quality of life; however, costs can be minimised by organisations. Limitations of the research are discussed and recommendations for future research are made including the need for longitudinal research.

Cognitive behavioural therapy in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (FOCUS): an assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although clozapine is the treatment of choice for treatment-refractory schizophrenia, 30-40% of patients have an insufficient response, and others are unable to tolerate it. Evidence for any augmentation strategies is scarce. We aimed to determine whether cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, parallel group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in community-based and inpatient mental health services in five sites in the UK. Patients with schizophrenia who were unable to tolerate clozapine, or whose symptoms did not respond to the drug, were randomly assigned 1:1 by use of randomised-permuted blocks of size four or six, stratified by centre, to either CBT plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Research assistants were masked to allocation to protect against rater bias and allegiance bias. The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months, which provides a continuous measure of symptoms of schizophrenia; PANSS total was also assessed at the end of treatment (9 months). The primary analysis was by randomised treatment based on intention to treat, for all patients for whom data were available. This study was prospectively registered, number ISRCTN99672552. The trial is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: From Jan 1, 2013, to May 31, 2015, we randomly assigned 487 participants to either CBT and treatment as usual (n=242) or treatment as usual alone (n=245). Analysis included 209 in the CBT group and 216 in the treatment as usual group. No difference occurred in the primary outcome (PANSS total at 21 months, mean difference -0·89, 95% CI -3·32 to 1·55; p=0·48), although the CBT group improved at the end of treatment (PANSS total at 9 months, mean difference -2·40, -4·79 to -0·02; p=0·049). During the trial, 107 (44%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and 104 (42%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had at least one adverse event (odds ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·81 to 1·46; p=0·58). Only two (1%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and one (<1%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had a trial-related serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION: At 21-month follow-up, CBT did not have a lasting effect on total symptoms of schizophrenia compared with treatment as usual; however, CBT produced statistically, though not clinically, significant improvements on total symptoms by the end of treatment. There was no indication that the addition of CBT to treatment as usual caused adverse effects. The results of this trial do not support a recommendation to routinely offer CBT to all people who meet criteria for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia; however, a pragmatic individual trial might be indicated for some. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment programme.

Antipsychotic drugs versus cognitive behavioural therapy versus a combination of both in people with psychosis: a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence is available for head-to-head comparisons of psychosocial interventions and pharmacological interventions in psychosis. We aimed to establish whether a randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus antipsychotic drugs versus a combination of both would be feasible in people with psychosis. METHODS: We did a single-site, single-blind pilot randomised controlled trial in people with psychosis who used services in National Health Service trusts across Greater Manchester, UK. Eligible participants were aged 16 years or older; met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service; were in contact with mental health services, under the care of a consultant psychiatrist; scored at least 4 on delusions or hallucinations items, or at least 5 on suspiciousness, persecution, or grandiosity items on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS); had capacity to consent; and were help-seeking. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, CBT, or antipsychotics plus CBT. Randomisation was done via a secure web-based randomisation system (Sealed Envelope), with randomised permuted blocks of 4 and 6, stratified by gender and first episode status. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant. Participants were followed up for 1 year. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data about recruitment, retention, and acceptability), and the primary efficacy outcome was the PANSS total score (assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks). Non-neurological side-effects were assessed systemically with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses were done on an as-treated basis. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN06022197. FINDINGS: Of 138 patients referred to the study, 75 were recruited and randomly assigned-26 to CBT, 24 to antipsychotics, and 25 to antipsychotics plus CBT. Attrition was low, and retention high, with only four withdrawals across all groups. 40 (78%) of 51 participants allocated to CBT attended six or more sessions. Of the 49 participants randomised to antipsychotics, 11 (22%) were not prescribed a regular antipsychotic. Median duration of total antipsychotic treatment was 44·5 weeks (IQR 26-51). PANSS total score was significantly reduced in the combined intervention group compared with the CBT group (-5·65 [95% CI -10·37 to -0·93]; p=0·019). PANSS total scores did not differ significantly between the combined group and the antipsychotics group (-4·52 [95% CI -9·30 to 0·26]; p=0·064) or between the antipsychotics and CBT groups (-1·13 [95% CI -5·81 to 3·55]; p=0·637). Significantly fewer side-effects, as measured with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale, were noted in the CBT group than in the antipsychotics (3·22 [95% CI 0·58 to 5·87]; p=0·017) or antipsychotics plus CBT (3·99 [95% CI 1·36 to 6·64]; p=0·003) groups. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be related to the trial (an overdose of three paracetamol tablets in the CBT group). INTERPRETATION: A head-to-head clinical trial of CBT versus antipsychotics versus the combination of the two is feasible and safe in people with first-episode psychosis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

"I Believe I Know Better Even than the Psychiatrists What Caused It": Exploring the Development of Causal Beliefs in People Experiencing Psychosis.

This study aimed to describe the causal beliefs of individuals experiencing psychosis, specifically exploring how they are developed and maintained. Individuals with experience of psychosis were recruited from mental health services for in-depth interviews. A thematic analysis was used to analyse transcripts and key themes were identified. Fifteen interviews were conducted. Individuals were engaged in the process of exploring explanations for their experiences and reported sophisticated models of causation. Participants described a change in their beliefs, with the cause of their experiences not immediately clear. Individuals generated their models via external (family, professionals) and internal (evaluative, positive affect) processes and reported differing levels of conviction in relation to their beliefs. Clinicians should take the opportunity to explore the causal beliefs of their service-users, as they are able to provide intelligent and thoughtful explanatory models. In particular, clinicians should be aware of the emotional impact of different aetiological models and their personal role in the development of a client's beliefs.

Causal beliefs in people experiencing psychosis: The relationship to treatment accessed and the perceived helpfulness of treatment.

PURPOSE: Research suggests that the way an individual understands a health difficulty can influence their subsequent behaviour. The aim of this study was to explore the psychometric properties of a new causal belief questionnaire for people who have experience of psychosis. We also planned to provide an overview of current causal beliefs within this group and to explore the relationship between these beliefs and the perceived helpfulness of treatment and the treatment accessed. METHODS: Three hundred and eleven service-users with experience of psychosis completed a questionnaire designed to explore how they understand the cause of their difficulties. Additional information was collected about different aspects of treatment. RESULTS: The results of the exploratory factor analysis indicated a two-factor solution comprising a psychosocial and biogenetic scale. Individuals in this study endorsed a variety of different causes, with an overall preference for psychosocial explanations. No relationships were established between beliefs and perceptions about the helpfulness of treatment. Individuals who had accessed cognitive behavioural therapy were more likely to endorse the psychosocial factor. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with psychosis consider a number of factors to be important in relation to the development of their experiences. These beliefs should be explored as part of the therapeutic process as this appears to be important to the individual and could potentially help inform treatment decisions. PRACTITIONER POINTS: The causal belief questionnaire captured two underlying constructs relating to psychosocial and biogenetic causes. Individuals within this group endorsed a range of factors; however, they prefer psychosocial causes overall. There was an indication that some aspects of an individual's beliefs were associated with the treatment they accessed.

Mental health clinicians' beliefs about the causes of psychosis: Differences between professions and relationship to treatment preferences.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence suggests that how an individual conceptualises the cause of a health problem can impact on subsequent perceptions and behaviour. AIMS: This study explored the beliefs about the causes of psychosis in a group of mental health professionals. The study also sought to examine the relationship between causal beliefs and the perceived helpfulness of different treatments. METHODS: A total of 219 clinicians completed a questionnaire about the provision of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and antipsychotic medication for their clients who were experiencing psychosis and their opinions about the helpfulness of these treatments. Causal beliefs were also assessed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Clients were twice as likely to be offered medication compared to CBT. Clinicians held a multifactorial model of aetiology, but were more likely to endorse psychosocial causes than biological factors. Clinicians with psychosocial beliefs were more likely to rate CBT as effective, whereas those with biological models were more likely to endorse the helpfulness of medication. Clinicians adopt a multi-causal approach when conceptualising the aetiology of psychosis and these beliefs were related to opinions about the helpfulness of treatment. Beliefs about the aetiology of their client's experiences could blind clinicians to the benefits of offering different approaches.

The Impact of Causal Explanations on Outcome in People Experiencing Psychosis: A Systematic Review.

Findings suggest that the way an individual understands their experiences has important consequences on subsequent health behaviour. One aspect of an individual's understanding is what they believe has caused their experiences. This has been associated with treatment outcome and attitudes towards mental health problems. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the impact of causal beliefs on treatment outcome and stigma in people experiencing psychosis. Three main databases were searched and 21 articles that investigated various aspects of treatment outcome, and stigma in relation to causal beliefs was included in the review. Overall, there were a small number of replicated findings which limits the interpretation of results. There is an indication that causal explanations are associated with various treatment outcomes, including attitudes towards treatment and satisfaction with therapeutic relationships as well as internalized stigma. Spiritual beliefs appeared to be adopted as a coping mechanism and a way to reduce stigma but did not appear to be associated with treatment outcome. Individuals with psychosis do appear to develop causal beliefs that may be associated with engagement with services and treatment, as well as impacting on their attitudes towards themselves and others with mental illness. This may have important implications for clinical practice. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: Individuals who have experience of psychosis develop their own subjective causal explanations, and these can be complex and contradictory. An individual's causal explanation may influence how they engage with services and treatment, as well as providing a way of coming to terms with their difficulties. Causal explanations may also contribute to the experience of stigma, which is often a significant barrier to recovery for this client group.

Measuring common responses to psychosis: Assessing the psychometric properties of a new measure.

Responses to psychotic experiences are central to cognitive models of psychosis. The current study aimed to develop and validate a self-report measure of common responses to the experience of psychosis. This measure is needed as cognitive and behavioural responses are implicated in the maintenance of psychosis, but there is currently no measure that comprehensively assesses these maintaining factors. The Measure of Common Responses to psychosis (MCR) was developed and utilised in a sample of 487 participants who met criteria for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Principal components analysis using data from 287 participants reduced the initial item pool of 31 items to 15 items with a three component structure. The components represented social control and reassurance seeking, threat monitoring and avoidance and conscious self-regulation attempts. Confirmatory factor analysis using data from the remaining 200 participants generally supported this three factor structure. The three subscales were found to have good internal consistency and convergent validity. The MCR, therefore, appears to be a useful tool to identify and monitor response styles, and could be utilised in further research to increase our understanding of the complex relationships between responses, symptoms and distress. It can also be used in clinical practice to elicit information that will be helpful in the psychological formulation and treatment of psychosis.

The Beliefs about Paranoia Scale: Confirmatory factor analysis and tests of a metacognitive model of paranoia in a clinical sample.

This study aimed to confirm the factor structure of the Beliefs about Paranoia Scale (BaPS), a self-report measure to assess metacognitive beliefs about paranoia, and to test hypotheses of a metacognitive model. We hypothesised that positive and negative beliefs about paranoia would be associated with severity of suspiciousness, and that the co-occurrence of positive and negative beliefs would be associated with increased suspiciousness. A total of 335 patients meeting criteria for a schizophrenia spectrum disorder completed the BaPS, the Positive and Negative Syndromes Scale (PANSS), and the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS). Confirmatory factor analysis verified that the three BaPS subscales (negative beliefs about paranoia, paranoia as a survival strategy, and normalizing beliefs) were an adequate fit of the data. Ordinal regression showed that positive beliefs about paranoia as a survival strategy and negative beliefs were both associated with severity of suspiciousness. This was the first study to show that the co-occurrence of positive and negative beliefs was associated with increased suspiciousness. All hypotheses were confirmed, suggesting that a metacognitive approach has utility for the conceptualization of paranoia. Clinical implications suggest a role for metacognitive therapy, including strategies such as detached mindfulness and worry postponement.

Design and protocol for the Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For around a third of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the condition proves to respond poorly to treatment with many typical and atypical antipsychotics. This is commonly referred to as treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Clozapine is the only antipsychotic with convincing efficacy for people whose symptoms are considered treatment-resistant to antipsychotic medication. However, 30-40 % of such conditions will have an insufficient response to the drug. Cognitive behavioural therapy has been shown to be an effective treatment for schizophrenia when delivered in combination with antipsychotic medication, with several meta-analyses showing robust support for this approach. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with a schizophrenia diagnosis whose symptoms are treatment-resistant to antipsychotic medication is limited. There is a clinical and economic need to evaluate treatments to improve outcomes for people with such conditions. METHODS/DESIGN: A parallel group, prospective randomised, open, blinded evaluation of outcomes design will be used to compare a standardised cognitive behavioural therapy intervention added to treatment as usual versus treatment as usual alone (the comparator group) for individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia for whom an adequate trial of clozapine has either not been possible due to tolerability problems or was not associated with a sufficient therapeutic response. The trial will be conducted across five sites in the United Kingdom. DISCUSSION: The recruitment target of 485 was achieved, with a final recruitment total of 487. This trial is the largest definitive, pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness trial of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia whose symptoms have failed to show an adequate response to clozapine treatment. Using a prognostic risk model, baseline information will be used to explore whether there are identifiable subgroups for which the treatment effect is greatest. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552 . Registered 29(th) November 2012.

Cognitive therapy for internalised stigma in people experiencing psychosis: A pilot randomised controlled trial.

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of Cognitive Therapy (CT) as an intervention for internalised stigma in people with psychosis. We conducted a single-blind randomised controlled pilot trial comparing CT plus treatment as usual (TAU) with TAU only. Participants were assessed at end of treatment (4 months) and follow-up (7 months). Twenty-nine participants with schizophrenia spectrum disorders were randomised. CT incorporated up to 12 sessions over 4 months (mean sessions=9.3). Primary outcome was the Internalised Stigma of Mental Illness Scale - Revised (ISMI-R) total score, which provides a continuous measure of internalised stigma associated with mental health problems. Secondary outcomes included self-rated recovery, internalised shame, emotional problems, hopelessness and self-esteem. Recruitment rates and retention for this trial were good. Changes in outcomes were analysed following the intention-to-treat principle, using ANCOVAs adjusted for baseline symptoms. There was no effect on our primary outcome, with a sizable reduction observed in both groups, but several secondary outcomes were significantly improved in the group assigned to CT, in comparison with TAU, including internalised shame, hopelessness and self-rated recovery. Stigma-focused CT appears feasible and acceptable in people with psychosis who have high levels of internalised stigma. A larger, definitive trial is required.

Confirming the structure of negative beliefs about psychosis and bipolar disorder: A confirmatory factor analysis study of the Personal Beliefs about Experience Questionnaire and Personal Beliefs about Illness Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: Negative beliefs about psychosis and other mental health difficulties may contribute to depression and distress in individuals with these experiences. The Personal Beliefs about Experience Questionnaire (PBEQ) and Personal Beliefs about Illness Questionnaire (PBIllQ) are two widely used measures of these beliefs. It is currently uncertain how the items on these measures map onto different underlying factors. This study therefore aimed to test the factor structure of these two measures. METHODS: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test three alternative, pre-specified, factor structures for the PBIllQ and PBEQ in a sample of individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder (n = 202) and a sample of individuals with experien-ces of psychosis (n = 362). Associations with depressive symptoms were also examined. RESULT: A three-factor structure was supported for both measures, which included Negative Expectations/Appraisals (NEA), Internal Shame/Defectiveness (ISD) and External Shame (ES) factors. The NEA and ISD subscales also had consistent independent associations with depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the PBIllQ and PBEQ may capture three distinct sets of negative beliefs in individuals with psychosis or bipolar disorder and that these beliefs may have important consequences for subsequent difficulties in these populations such as depression. Both measures may be helpful in supporting assessment and formulation in clinical practice and in evaluating belief change in intervention trials. However, when used in these settings, the three subscales identified in this study may be the most valid way of calculating scores on these measures. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Negative personal beliefs about the causes, meaning and consequences of psychosis and bipolar disorder are associated with greater distress and depression. Two related measures, the PBIllQ and PBEQ, have been developed to assess these beliefs. Our analyses suggest that scores on these questionnaires are best broken down into three subscales which capture perceptions of internal shame or defectiveness, general negative appraisals and perceptions of external shame. These subscales may capture key underlying sets of negative beliefs within individuals with psychosis or bipolar disorder, which in turn impact upon well-being, such as being associated with greater depression. These subscales can be used to aid assessment and formulation within clinical practice but may also provide a valuable means of assessing changes in negative beliefs following interventions.

Internalized stigma, emotional dysfunction and unusual experiences in young people at risk of psychosis.

AIMS: To investigate the relationship between internalized stigma, depression, social anxiety and unusual experiences in young people considered to be at risk of developing psychosis. METHODS: A total of 288 participants meeting criteria for an at-risk mental state were recruited as part of a multisite randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy for people meeting criteria for an at risk mental state (ARMS). The sample was assessed at baseline and 6 months using measures of at risk mental states, internalized stigma, depression and social anxiety. RESULTS: The Personal Beliefs about Experiences Questionnaire was validated for use with an ARMS sample. Correlational analyses at baseline indicated significant relationships between internalized stigma and: (i) depression; (ii) social anxiety; (iii) distress associated with unusual psychological experiences; and (iv) suicidal thinking. Regression analysis indicates negative appraisals of unusual experiences contributed significantly to depression scores at 6-month follow up when controlling for baseline depression and unusual psychological experiences. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that internalized stigma may contribute to the development and maintenance of depression in young people at risk of psychosis.